Related
I'm using the new DCD 2.0 rom with great results -- and since I've been just a lurker for awhile, a big THANK YOU to everyone working on that.
I have a quick question: How do I know if it's connected using Rev A? I'm not seeing any performance differences, though there should be Rev A coverage here... just curious
There are a few mobile bandwidth tests that you can run.
http://www.dslreports.com/mspeed?jisok=1
my average looks about 611 kbit/sec... that is the same as before the Rev A upgrade. this means Rev A isn't working? and to judge by reports from others, I guess nobody really has it working?
sorry to put those as a question, butas far as I can tell, there is no evidence of a speed diff w/ the new radio.
gps works great, of course... and on WM6.1, everything is faster. just not data...
Are you sure you have Rev A in your area?
I'm getting around 900k now... before I was in the 200k range, if I was lucky!
Check out this site for an idea of Rev. A coverage in your area.
Hint: The more that submit the more accurate it becomes...
http://evdomaps.com/
Rev A is definetly working on the 3.16 ROMs. I used to average around 400-600 down and never more than about 120 up. Now I'm averaging around 1 meg down and 300 up. The best I've gotten was 2.2 down, 540 up. Definetly Rev A...
My upload speed is faster, but my download speeds are still the same. Then again, I've always wondered how good the EVDO network in my area actually is.
I like this entry on EVDO Maps:
200 Consillium Place Toronto, ON M1H 3J3
Carrier: Verizon Create Date: 6/29/2007
Computer: CANADAPK Update Date: 6/29/2007
Network: RevA Location: outdoors
Download: 1972 Upload: 640
dBm: Bars:
This is TELUS Mobility HQ.... almost 2megs/sec download!
interesting.
I'm in Utah Valley, in ... err... well, Utah. Sprint's maps all show full coverage, but I thought I saw a map once that had specifically Rev A. now I can't find it.
maybe they don't have it here yet... that would be strange, given the unusually high concentration of technology companies that are found around here, even despite Novell's slow decline. But, I've been getting 400-1000kbps since I got my phone, not just since the update... no noticable change.
maybe someday they'll get it going and suddenly everything will speed up =]
too bad there is no indication other than speed of which rev the evdo is running. it would be interesting
do you really mainly notice Rev A speeds when you use your phone as a modem? i thought i'd really be able to see a difference with Rev A using slingplayer, but i get the same speeds as i did on my old rom. i live around pittsburgh as well which is supossed to be a rev A area.
Check the latency
As a general statement, the improvements from Rev. 0 to Rev. A are not that impressive on the download side. Yes, the improvements on the upload side should be more impressive, but how many people are doing any significant uploading?
On the other hand, the latency should improve considerably and I think most people overlook that. It's a pretty big deal.
We just got finished upgrading the embedded WWAN on a bunch of laptops at work from Rev. 0 to Rev. A and I can tell you the entire improvement was in the latency. The responsiveness was much improved.
I would be checking that first. Do some before and after tests and report them back.
yeah, ive definately seen an improvement in latency, i used to get 1s+ pinging google, now i average about 125ms
wow
i flashed to the leaked htc 3.16 first and my download is really slow, more like 288 to 488. but when i flashed to dcd's 2.0 i got 997/sec. thats amazing. big difference. i used the same mobile speed site.
edit:
just did another test 1020/sec thats cool. I myt not get the same speed all the time but it feels good knowing i wont go anywhere near the slow speed of pass roms.
I get around 2.23MBPS download using opera mini and the running the Leaked 3.16 ROM. Much faster than my previous 400-1.2MBPS download on the 2.16 ROM. Funny thing is that, when i switch from opera mini to Opera Mobile, or IE, i get really slow speeds, maybe top at 1MBPS but usually like 500KBPS. Its like only opera mini can use the Rev.A while the other two stick with the Rev.0
well, i'm getting about 110 down, and i live in chicago where we have rev A, i've never been able to get more than 1x
anyone have any ideas on why that i live in a rev a area, i only get 1x, always only get 1 x
600-900kbs avg for me on TELUS
killerkhatiby009 said:
I get around 2.23MBPS download using opera mini and the running the Leaked 3.16 ROM. Much faster than my previous 400-1.2MBPS download on the 2.16 ROM. Funny thing is that, when i switch from opera mini to Opera Mobile, or IE, i get really slow speeds, maybe top at 1MBPS but usually like 500KBPS. Its like only opera mini can use the Rev.A while the other two stick with the Rev.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember that Opera Mini goes through a server and strips some data from the images so they load faster on your device, which in turn shows inflated download speeds. Opera Mobile and IE are loading the raw data so it takes longer, thus yielding the "real" speed results.
I thought that Rev A was supposed to support simultaneous Data and Voice connections? I was not able to load a website while on a call. Is this something that needs to be activated by the carrier? Should I be able to do both on the new ROM? I see that there is still a CDMA1X connect that happens when I load a webpage, or at first data usage...any ideas?
dadishman said:
I thought that Rev A was supposed to support simultaneous Data and Voice connections? I was not able to load a website while on a call. Is this something that needs to be activated by the carrier? Should I be able to do both on the new ROM? I see that there is still a CDMA1X connect that happens when I load a webpage, or at first data usage...any ideas?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be EVDV not REV A.
Here is a good explanation of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000
Is this phone supposed to be any faster than the Captivate (Galaxy S), data wise, assuming one is in the 3G section of the AT&T site and the other in the 4G section, or is there really no jump at all? I just tried a speed test with a Captivate and my GSII, and both showed the same speed on speed test which is pretty weird in my opinion...
Really depends on your area, in socal valley I can run a captivate right next the SGS2 and get the same results with the captivate slightly slower with uploads (fixed usually with a I9000 modem)
That's what I did too, haha...Put a Captivate and GSII next to each other in SoCal, and the speed was the same, so I was like =0.
I am in a HSPA+ service area, on my captivate I almost never saw more that 2Mbps down, I see just over 3 on my i777.
Sent from my Galaxy S II (i777)
I'm getting way better speeds on my SGS2 than I was getting on my Captivate. I have my gs2 stock, but it's still faster than my Captivate stock, with stock froyo, and with numerous roms. I don't remember exactly what my speed tests were with my Cappy (around 1.5 - 3 DL and .5 to .8 Up), but I'm getting 6+ to 8 DL and 1.5 Up with my sg2
Depends on if you have a real H+ coverage?
To me it's about 3 times faster than captivate in house.
Was getting 600KB/s in a 3g area whereas the captivate only got 300 (no HSPA+ in my neighborhood)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using xda premium
when I used to use the speedtest app, I got the same data speeds on my captivate and my gs2. As soon as I used the speedtest via the browser, it showed the speed difference.
Yeah, this makes more sense, the browser application and the speed test application have varying numbers...I guess speed test application =/= reliable
yeah, its documented in a few places that the speedtest app is not reliable (maybe on some devices?)
I use the FCC speed test app, more accurate results
I know this is an old thread but I didnt want to start a new one for this. I have been running side by side speed tests with a captivate running cm7. On my gs2 I'm running unnamed 2.1.1 with the UCKK6 modem. I am consistently getting better speeds on the captivate than I am on the GS2 (sometimes over 1+mbps higher) The gs2 has never gotten higher speeds than the captivate. I've tried different modems, Ive run the FCC speed test, the normal speedtest app and the speakeasy.net website all yielding the same results. I'm in an area that is supposed to have great HSPA+ coverage. I just dont understand why my GS2 isnt getting higher speeds than the captivate since it's HSPA+ and the captivate is only 3G(if I'm not mistaken) Both phones were new orders so new sims, service etc..
My captivate RARELY got to 4mbps. My sgsII usually hovers around 6-8mbps
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
jdbeitz said:
My captivate RARELY got to 4mbps. My sgsII usually hovers around 6-8mbps
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my Gs2 hasnt gotten over 4 yet
Just now I went outside and did a speed test. my captivate pulled a little over 4mbps and my gs2 was at 3.
Yeah i guess i have to try to different modems and settings because my captivate was pulling 5300 down and 1100 up and my GS2 is only doing a meg faster down and the same up. It kind of retarded that i had to switch my sim card to a 4g one if my speed did not really change. Does anyone know if the 3g supercharger works for 4g. I was going to ask Zep but i figured id ask here since i was making post around the subject
\/icious said:
Does anyone know if the 3g supercharger works for 4g. I was going to ask Zep but i figured id ask here since i was making post around the subject
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
??? What 3G supercharger?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=991276&highlight=v6+supercharger
Zepplinrox's V6 supercharger Kick Ass Kernal (KAK) Tweaks and 3g turbocharger. You have to go to the 4th line down where it says most recent files here to get KAK and the 3g turbocharger. It worked pretty well for my captivate. I think im going to apply it to my SGSII even though its runs as smooth as can be just because i like overkill lol
/me gets popcorn while awaiting results.
I'm in Dallas, TX so AT&T coverage is not an issue here, and I get the same speed on the Captivate and the SGS2 an average of 3mbps down.
zeppelinrox said:
/me gets popcorn while awaiting results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol Zep your the man. Well i havent had time to try all settings thoughly to get a clear and concise judgement on the 3g turbocharger. I started off only getting around 6.3m down and 1.1m up. I ran tweakker and my next tests immediately after were all around 5.6 down 1.1 up. The next day, however, they jumped up to around 7.4 down 1.1 up. I applied 3g turbocharger fastest and experimental and test after that were around 8.3 afterwards. I ran the test five to six times on speedtest.net. I need to create an acct. so i can track this stuff. I was using the app but the app was showing 2m less consitantly on my down speeds. i really should have ran my phone longer after using tweakker to make sure around 7.4 was going to be my norm peak.
I applied V6 supercharger through build.prop and integrated running die-hard & 1000hp and also applied KAK tweak with I/O tweaks off as my phone locked up when i applied the I/O tweaks but thats probably because mine is set to CFQ. Dont know why and will probably set it to deadline. The one thing this fixed for me was the transition using the browser. Going in and out of the browser was never as snappy until now. I just cant slow this MFer down. I was concerned that i let my impatience get the best of me picking up this phone instead of waiting on the next gen as i only get a new phone when i can upgrade every 18 months but i have no doubt this phone will last me the next 18 month easily. Thanks to Entropy512, GTX465x, and Zeppelinrox My phone runs buttery smooth and i have not yet stumbled on a single hiccup. My hat is off to you gents. I feel like my phone is set for overkill and ICS still isnt out and i havent tried to go to 1600mhz. Mine is running @ 1400 BTW and under volted by -100mV. I have a feeling my next phone upgrade is really only going to be for a better screen and camera as speed probably wont ever be an issue.
Is there a bandwidth cap? I am on my wireless n and can't seem to break 15/15 on speed test from my phone but from my pc I get 30/25. Any help would be appreciated.
Are you using the speedtest.net app? It can be very inaccurate. I would try going to the website with your browser set to desktop mode.
Ah, thanks. Still a little slower than my pc but much faster than the app. The app was pretty far off
Switch servers in the mobile app, I've gotten a wide variety of speeds sitting in the same location.
mjones73 said:
Switch servers in the mobile app, I've gotten a wide variety of speeds sitting in the same location.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same here!
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Also make sure in the advanced wifi settings you have it set to 'max performance'... otherwise it's just g, or lower power...
Has anyone experienced getting drastically different speeds measuring either wifi or data with these two apps? With OpenSignalMaps, I'm getting a little over half of what I'm getting with SpeedTest.
Which one's more accurate?
clankfu said:
Has anyone experienced getting drastically different speeds measuring either wifi or data with these two apps? With OpenSignalMaps, I'm getting a little over half of what I'm getting with SpeedTest.
Which one's more accurate?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are many different speed test apps or websites out there. May of them utilize different technologies like Java or Flash and therefore can give different values. This has been an oft debated issue in the internet world. Personally I believe SpeedTest because it usually gives me the speed value I expect. I'll make two points though:
1. You have to be sure you are talking about the same number, i.e. Megabits per second vs. Megabytes per second
2. Depending on the location of servers you are connecting to to run your test, or the sites connected in between you can get different numbers. i.e. One test connect to a server 100 miles away and the other server being 1000 miles away.
both apps give me basically the same results. make sure u account for bits vs bytes. Openmaps is way more advance. the tower map and compass is awesome. especially when trying out prls
raptoro07 said:
There are many different speed test apps or websites out there. May of them utilize different technologies like Java or Flash and therefore can give different values. This has been an oft debated issue in the internet world. Personally I believe SpeedTest because it usually gives me the speed value I expect. I'll make two points though:
1. You have to be sure you are talking about the same number, i.e. Megabits per second vs. Megabytes per second
2. Depending on the location of servers you are connecting to to run your test, or the sites connected in between you can get different numbers. i.e. One test connect to a server 100 miles away and the other server being 1000 miles away.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And don't always trust the server closest to you... I live in Tampa, and be it over the phone nor the PC, I get faster and better pings and speeds using the Atlanta server...
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
spaceosc said:
both apps give me basically the same results. make sure u account for bits vs bytes. Openmaps is way more advance. the tower map and compass is awesome. especially when trying out prls
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They both measure by bits don't they?
clankfu said:
They both measure by bits don't they?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I believe so. If one is eight times faster than the other, then one is bits the other bytes. As for different speeds, the server makes a big difference. Speedtest usually uses the closest server so it's speeds tend to be faster for me. I have Bright house in Tampa and they host the local speedtest server, so my home speed always matches my advertised speed .
Save the Drama for your Mama with Tapatalk 2
coal686 said:
Speedtest usually uses the closest server so it's speeds tend to be faster for me. I have Bright house in Tampa and they host the local speedtest server, so my home speed always matches my advertised speed .
Save the Drama for your Mama with Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gotcha...makes sense.
Depends on methodology
Going to jump in here as one of the developers behind OpenSignalMaps.
When it comes to speed test there isn't really such thing as 'more accurate', its really just a question of the methodology you employ. There are all sorts of different choices you can make, such as, do you use the closest servers? how many http connections do you use? how large of a file do you download? do you discard any data points? The answers to all of these questions really depends on what exactly you are testing. The ethos behind OpenSignalMaps has always been that we are trying to measure the actual user experience as accurately as possible so all the decisions we've made in our speed testing methodology are in order to recreate what a user would experience in general usage of their device. I think the methodology behind Ookla's Speedtest.net app (which is fantastic) could be more accurately described as testing the raw, highest capacity of your network connection. Thus in general you should see higher speeds with the Speedtest.net app than the OpenSignalMaps app, but our aim is that our speeds would more closely mirror what you actually experience on your device.
One example is server choice: SpeedTest.net encourages you to use the nearest server, usually in the same city. We do use many different servers (to remove geographical bias), but in general the server will not be so close to you and we would argue that in general browsing of the web you aren't likely to be served by a server so close to you. We actually host our Speedtests on multiple popular CDNs in order to emulate a large proportion of general web traffic.
Another example is that SpeedTest.net will discard some of the result data before calculating the average speed as they argue its representing the TCP/IP algorithm rather than the raw HTTP throughput of the connection (see page 20 of an excellent paper "Broadband Speed Measurements" by Bauer, Clark and Lehr - google it). At OpenSignalMaps we don't care if the bottleneck is the TCP/IP algorithm or the actual network connection we just want to give you the most accurate representation of your connection speed.
Just to clarify I'm not trying to argue one is better than the other and we have great respect for Ookla and other speedtest providers, just that it depends on what you want to test. If you are looking to see if your ISP is providing you with the max speed that the are advertising, Speedtest.net is probably going to be the best tool for that. If you want to try and gauge what speeds you are actually seeing in day to day usage then we are trying to build OpenSignalMaps as the application for that. We still have a huge amount to do to achieve that but we have a lot of great features in the pipeline
bmdgill said:
Going to jump in here as one of the developers behind OpenSignalMaps.
When it comes to speed test there isn't really such thing as 'more accurate', its really just a question of the methodology you employ. There are all sorts of different choices you can make, such as, do you use the closest servers? how many http connections do you use? how large of a file do you download? do you discard any data points? The answers to all of these questions really depends on what exactly you are testing. The ethos behind OpenSignalMaps has always been that we are trying to measure the actual user experience as accurately as possible so all the decisions we've made in our speed testing methodology are in order to recreate what a user would experience in general usage of their device. I think the methodology behind Ookla's Speedtest.net app (which is fantastic) could be more accurately described as testing the raw, highest capacity of your network connection. Thus in general you should see higher speeds with the Speedtest.net app than the OpenSignalMaps app, but our aim is that our speeds would more closely mirror what you actually experience on your device.
One example is server choice: SpeedTest.net encourages you to use the nearest server, usually in the same city. We do use many different servers (to remove geographical bias), but in general the server will not be so close to you and we would argue that in general browsing of the web you aren't likely to be served by a server so close to you. We actually host our Speedtests on multiple popular CDNs in order to emulate a large proportion of general web traffic.
Another example is that SpeedTest.net will discard some of the result data before calculating the average speed as they argue its representing the TCP/IP algorithm rather than the raw HTTP throughput of the connection (see page 20 of an excellent paper "Broadband Speed Measurements" by Bauer, Clark and Lehr - google it). At OpenSignalMaps we don't care if the bottleneck is the TCP/IP algorithm or the actual network connection we just want to give you the most accurate representation of your connection speed.
Just to clarify I'm not trying to argue one is better than the other and we have great respect for Ookla and other speedtest providers, just that it depends on what you want to test. If you are looking to see if your ISP is providing you with the max speed that the are advertising, Speedtest.net is probably going to be the best tool for that. If you want to try and gauge what speeds you are actually seeing in day to day usage then we are trying to build OpenSignalMaps as the application for that. We still have a huge amount to do to achieve that but we have a lot of great features in the pipeline
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the response and explanation.
I have 12 mbs internet at my house. When I connect with my phone and run a speed test I get around 6 mbs. At the very same time with my computer I get 11 mbs. I have best wifi performance checked. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks too.
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
Ive heard people report that best wifi performance is a battery hog and doesnt help..
also is your using speedtest.net app try to select different locations for it. I have 3 servers in Dallas that i can choose from, and occasionally 1 of them gives me slower then normal readings.